GENDER AND JUSTICE COMMISSION AOC SEATAC FACILITY

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 (8:45 AM – NOON) JUSTICE SHERYL GORDON MCCLOUD, CHAIR

JUDGE MARILYN PAJA, VICE CHAIR

Agenda Page

8:45AM – 9:00 AM CALL TO ORDER

Approval of May 12, 2017 Meeting Notes 1

9:00 – 9:15 AM GUEST SPEAKER (via phone)

Ms. Callie Dietz (tentative) State Court Administrator, AOC

9:15 – 10:45 AM COMMITTEE AND PROJECT UPDATES

Gender Bias Study Report back from July 27th meeting Advisory Committee selections Subcommittee breakdown and leaders

Tribal State Court Consortium Regional meeting “An Evening of Collaboration” Meeting and film

screening

Incarcerated Women and Girls Committee Report back from “Court Access for Incarcerated

Parents” Convening Reentry Simulation

Communications Gender and Justice 2015 - 2016 Report

Education Joint Commissions Education Meetings Upcoming education programs

o Fall Conferenceo Appellate Conferenceo SCJAo DMCJAo Judicial College

Justice Gordon McCloud & Committee

7

Justice Susan Owens 9

Ms. Gail Stone & Committee

14

Judge Paja

Judge Melnick & Committee

20

10:45 – 11:00 BREAK

GENDER AND JUSTICE COMMISSION AOC SEATAC FACILITY

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 (8:45 AM – NOON) JUSTICE SHERYL GORDON MCCLOUD, CHAIR

JUDGE MARILYN PAJA, VICE CHAIR

Agenda Page

11:00 – 11:15 AM GUEST SPEAKER

Hon. Faith Ireland Executive Committee, Gender & Justice Task Force

11:15 – 12:00 PM CHAIR AND STAFF REPORTS

Staff Report GJCOM funding overview New fiscal year budget Protection order forms translation update

Chair Report Nominations Committee meeting

o New Commissioners will attend Nov. meeting HB 1163 Implementation

Ms. Kelley Amburgey-Richardson 27

Justice Gordon McCloud

29

Vice Chair Report NAWJ Midyear Conference

Judge Paja

31

APPENDIX

Gender & Justice Meeting Dates 2018 33

The Incarcerated Women and Girls Committee will be meeting in the room adjacent directly after the Commission meeting.

Gender and Justice Commission (GJCOM) SeaTac Office

18000 International Blvd Friday, May 12, 2017 (8:45 AM – 12:00 PM)

MEETING NOTES

Present: Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Chair; Judge Marilyn Paja, Vice Chair; Ms. Grace Huang, Judge Richard Melnick, Dr. Dana Raigrodski, Judge Cindy K. Smith, Ms. Rita Bender, Judge Michael Evans, Ms. Leslie Savina, Ms. Emily Cordo, Ms. Vicky Vreeland, Ms. Gail Stone, Ms. Emily Miner, Ms. Anela Ramic, Judge Eric Lucas, Ms. Gail Hamer, Ms. Trish Kinlow, Ms. Josie Delvin

AOC Staff: Ms. Nichole Kloepfer, Ms. Kelley Amburgey-Richardson, Ms. Kathy Bradley

Excused: Judge Judy Jasprica, Judge Anita Crawford-Willis, Judge Mark Pouley, Ms. Sonia M. Rodriguez True, Mr. David Ward, Ms. Jennifer Ritchie

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:45am.

March 3, 2017 Meeting Notes Minutes approved and passed unanimously as presented.

Education General The Education Committee met March 27th and had a productive conversation about the goals of the

Committee and planning for future and ongoing programs. Some issues discussed were: making sure we are vetting speakers properly, balanced programs, not

advocating positions, allocating money appropriately among the programs, alternative trainingformats (e.g webinars), development of a Committee mission.

The conference calendar is being revised so the Committee can use it throughout the year to planahead for submitting and developing session proposals.

DV Symposium September 7-8 at Seattle University School of Law. GJCOM provides funding for the Symposium that

is used for (1) scholarships/travel reimbursement for judicial officers to attend and (2) faculty forjudicial sessions.

Grace Huang is presenting a session on “Enhanced Safety for Immigrant Survivors in Current PoliticalClimate.” She is also writing an article for the WSBA newsletter on this issue, and will share withGJCOM.

Justice Gordon McCloud shared that Chief Justice Fairhurst recently sent a letter to HomelandSecurity requesting arrests not be made the court house. Letter can be accessed here.

1

Family Law Mid-Year Conference This is sponsored by the family law section of WSBA. Private family law attorneys statewide attend. David Ward is presenting a session on DV and other gender equity issues. The session is still in

development with conference organizers. This is the first time GJCOM will present to this audience. GJCOM is reimbursing travel.

Judicial College A shadow faculty member needs to be selected for Judge Charles Short. The faculty member will

shadow him this year, and then present with Judge Lori Kay Smith next year. After feedback from the Education Committee, Judge Melnick is working with the Judicial College

Deans and staff to select the shadow faculty.

DMCMA Line Staff Trainings Seven Locations: Burlington, Lacey, Seatac, Gig Harbor, Cle Elum, Pasco, and Spokane. Participants were line staff in a variety of positions, who interact frequently with the public. Most

participants were women. Trish Kinlow and Emily Cordo reported that the 7 programs were well received and thought

provoking for front line staff when interacting with customers who may have experienced trauma. Evaluations will be summarized and distributed.

Appellate Judges’ Conference GJCOM sponsored a 3 hour workshop on collegiality provided by 2 federal judges. This was well received. Evaluations are forthcoming and will be shared.

SCJA Spring Conference April 25th, 1:45 – 4pm in Spokane, WA. Judge Evans was the GJCOM liaison. This session focused on procedural fairness and cultural competence in protection order

proceedings. There were some challenges with this session. Evaluations are forthcoming. DMCJA Spring Conference The event is June 6th, 10:15 – 11:45am, Spokane, WA. Judge Jasprica is the GJCOM liaison. The focus is on Technology Misuse in Domestic Violence Cases (e.g. cyberstalking) and the presenter

is Ian Harris from the SafetyNet Project of the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

Fall Conference Two proposals were accepted. Transgender People and the Courts: Ensuring Respect and Fairness (David Ward is the GJCOM

liaison) – Sept 19th, 8:30 – 10am, Vancouver, WA. This is a four person panel discussion. DV and Children (Leslie Savina is the GJCOM liaison) – Sept 18th, 10:30 – 12, Vancouver, WA.

Profession Jeff Edleson is the faculty for this session. He is also presenting a CLE to the Clark County Bar Association on Hague Convention issues with Sudha Shetty.

2

It was suggested that the DV session include discussion of children’s entry into the juvenile justice and child welfare systems.

Upcoming Meetings June 19th CEC (Court Education Committee) at SeaTac. June 21st – Joint Commissions Education Committee meeting with MJCOM and IC at the AOC Office

in Olympia. Miscellaneous Vicky Vreeland suggested the DV Leave Act as a future topic for an education session. Gender Bias Study Embedded librarian Laura Edmonston, Reference Librarian with the Washington State Law Library, explained her role as

an embedded librarian with this project. She and Rob Mead, State Law Librarian, will be coordinating an effort with volunteers. They are

developing a questionnaire to send to volunteers to determine the best fit for each person. Volunteer attorneys and law students will be revisiting the original topic areas of the 1989 report, including literature review and statutory updates.

Progress on scoping The committee is summarizing issues and conducting interviews with experts in the field. The committee would like input from the Commission about which topics should be prioritized. Justice Gordon McCloud distributed an outline of the potential study topics, and asked that

Commission members send their feedback to her or Kelley Amburgey-Richardson. ACTION: Please send your feedback to Kelley or Justice Gordon McCloud. Funding update The Task Force is considering applying for an SJI grant that is due in October. Research is being conducted into the amount of funds needed and the type of staffing needed for

this project (e.g. researcher, project coordinator, etc).

Tribal State Court Consortium Update on regional meeting The event will be July 21, 9am-4pm, at the Colville Tribal Government Center. Save the Date will be

disseminated soon. The Guest of Honor is Judge B.J. Jones. As more information becomes available it can be found here. Inviting (29 tribes and state court) Also tribal court judges. 40-50 people usually attend. Lodging and travel reimbursement will be provided to those who attend. For more information on the event contact Cynthia Delostrinos.

3

Incarcerated Women and Girls Committee “Court Access for Incarcerated Parents” Convening The committee report is attached to the packet on page 8. This event is planned for Monday, June 26th from 9am – 3pm at the AOC SeaTac facility. There will be a planning Committee with IWGC members and members of the Children of

Incarcerated Parents Taskforce. Kiosks and Legal Resource Availability Legal resource availability at Mission Creek is an issue. There is no law library, and currently no

access to internet for forms. When attorneys come for clinic, they bring forms, but this is not often enough and if the form is incorrect there is no way to obtain the correct one until the next clinic.

Rob Mead, State Law Librarian, is working on a related issue and would be a good contact. Kiosk update: the grant was secured, but there is an ongoing issue with DOC approval of the

websites to be allowed which has stalled the installation. In contact with Secretary Sinclair.

Juvenile Defense Guidelines The committee is waiting to receive the latest draft. Once this is received, will revise its comments.

Law Student/Judicial Reception Planning Update Scholarships to 2 students from NAWJ and WSAJ, traditionally given to women. Event rotates among

the three law schools. Students from the UW Women’s Law Caucus, Vicky Vreeland (WSAJ, GJCOM), and Judge Donohue

(NAWJ) are planning this event with GJCOM staff. The event is scheduled for November 1st. Input from the Commission was requested about the event

location – law firm or UW. Commission members preferred the UW location for student participation.

Communications Annual Report Biennial work rough draft, will have completed at the end of May. There is an interest in using artwork displayed in the Temple of Justice, and Kelley is reaching out to

artist for permission. If you have GJCOM suggestions or things to submit send them to Kelley. NAWJ Judge Paja coordinated with NAWJ to have a report about the new Gender Bias Study on their

midyear meeting agenda. She will be present at the meeting. The goal is primarily to ask NAWJ to be a partner, including in requests for funding from outside agencies.

4

Women’s History Month Reception The event was held on March 3rd at the Temple of Justice. Legislators RSVP’d but did not attend. Commission discussed whether the event format/date/location should be changed to make it easier

or more attractive for legislators to attend or whether focus/audience/goal of event should change. Fridays are not going to work for the legislature. Middle of the week would be better, and need to

consider the right time during session so there are less conflicts. Justice Owens suggests January. Legislative staff are also a good target audience if legislators themselves cannot attend. Another option would be to make this a community press event. Market GJCOM in Olympia, bring in

state agencies in. Invite DOC, DSHS, showcase women’s programs, where they intersect with GJCOM.

ACTION: The Communications Committee will consider options to present to GJCOM for next year’s event. Guest Speaker Remote Access for DVPO hearings Materials are in the packet starting on page 9. The guest speaker, Brooke Hays, was unable to join the meeting via phone. Leslie Savina was familiar with the issue, and summarized the request for the Commission. Staff have conveyed that the current year’s G&J STOP budget does not set aside funding for grants of

this type to counties. The issue is likely happening in other rural counties, and it is beneficial for Commission members to

be aware of it and consider what the Commission may be able to do to assist. There were concerns about the request for funding. There are other methods of remote access, such

as skype, that are available free of cost. ACTION: Judge Evans and Ms. Savina volunteered to continue work on this issue. Staff will provide support. Chair Report New Member Nominations The membership terms chart is in packet on page 15. There are 2 vacancies this summer and 5 more next year. The Nominations Committee will convene in the coming months, and are accepting resumes from

interested individuals and recommendations from other GJCOM members. Submit your recommendations to Kelley Amburgey-Richardson and she will package this information

and provide to the Committee. Committee Memberships The committee chart is in the packet on page 16. GJCOM is a working Commission, and all members should participate on a Committee. If you would like to join a new Committee, or switch Committees, please let the Chairs and/or staff

know.

5

Committee Chairs should submit a short written report of current projects at least a week prior to GJCOM meetings for inclusion in the meeting packet and for task/record keeping.

HB 1163 Implementation Relevant sections of the bill are in the packet starting on page 17. This bill passed the legislature. It requires GJCOM to convene two workgroups on DV risk assessment

and DV perpetrator treatment and write reports to the legislature. This is also an opportunity to connect with new partners for the Gender Bias Study work. The Chairs are working with staff on an implementation plan for the work required by the bill. A GJCOM appointed member will be needed to sit on the workgroups. Miscellaneous The packet includes letters send by GJCOM to the WA State Congressional delegation on VAWA

funding, and the ATJ Board on the draft State Plan for the Delivery of Civil Legal Aid. Positive response has been received from the VAWA letter. The ATJ Board did not adopt GJCOM’s

comments in the draft plan. Vice Chair Report BJA Resolution - Language Access A copy of the letter sent by Chair on behalf of GJCOM is in the packet on page 20. GJCOM’s letter supports the renewal of the resolution, and asks for language supporting translation

of DV/SA forms. The Interpreter Commission is leading the request for this Resolution renewal.

Data Dissemination Committee - VAWA Workgroup VAWA workgroup is being convened by staff to this Committee at AOC. This group is being convened to determine whether AOC is in violation of VAWA by its publication of

certain DV victim information online. GJCOM will monitor progress of this workgroup and report back.

Staff Report Conference Scholarships Ms. Amburgey-Richardson asked the Commission’s guidance on selecting recipients for scholarship

awards to judicial officers and court staff to attend national trainings. General guidance discussed: (1) limit the amount to $1500 or less depending on cost/location so

more individuals may receive support, (2) provide conference support only to individuals who have not received funds for this in the past three years, (3) require the recipient to report back – write a short report for the meeting packet, and attend an Education Committee call to share any emerging issues or outstanding presenters.

GJCOM Funding Overview (tabled for next meeting) The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:00pm.

6

Page 1 of 2

2017 Washington State Gender Bias Study

BACKGROUND

In 1987 the Washington State Legislature mandated the Administrative Office of the Courts to initiate measures to prevent gender bias in the state court system. After two years of research, public hearings, and surveys, the Gender and Justice Task Force concluded gender bias existed in the Washington State court system and described the extent of that bias in its final report, Gender and Justice in the Courts, Washington State, 1989. The Washington State Supreme Court Gender and Justice Commission was created as a result of the report, and was tasked with monitoring and implementing the recommendations from the report.

ISSUE

The extent of gender bias in the court system in Washington State, and the forms it currently takes, have not been studied since 1989. Much has changed since, such as advancements in technology and delivery systems in the courts, mass incarceration, immigration, increases in user fees, and the current status of women litigants, lawyers, judges, and court personnel. To our knowledge, no state has revisited such a study.

PROPOSED SCOPE

An Update on the Original Report The original report focused on the status of litigants in three areas:

Domestic violence and rape

Consequences of divorce

Economic consequences in wrongful death cases and attorney fee awards in discrimination cases

The report’s other major focus was on the treatment of lawyers, litigants, judges, and court personnel including:

Courtroom treatment of litigants and legal professionals

Credibility of women in the courtroom

Acceptance of women in the legal and judicial communities

Court personnel practices and procedures New Areas of Gender Bias in the Courts The Gender and Justice Commission recognizes that much has changed since 1989, and proposes to focus the new report on the justice system’s impact on women, particularly on women in poverty. In addition to revisiting the original study’s focus areas, this would include taking into consideration the many changes that affect our legal system such as:

Developments in technology

How legal services are provided

Delivery systems

User fees

Incarceration rates

Immigration

7

Page 2 of 2

From an access to justice perspective, the new study would look particularly at how one’s gender impacts opportunities, barriers, and outcomes, as well as at the intersection of gender bias and race, immigration status, language, age, and sexual orientation. We understand that this will require looking at:

What happens inside the courtroom

Circumstances that force individuals into court or compel them to seek the courts as a forum

Consequences after a court case, with special attention to legal financial obligations and mass incarceration

CONCLUSION Revisiting the Gender and Justice in the Courts study is an undertaking which will require considerable resources and the support of state and national stakeholders. We believe that Washington State’s efforts would lead the way for other states to revisit their gender bias studies, and that our model could serve as a template for replicating these efforts across the nation. POTENTIAL STATE STAKEHOLDERS

Administrative Office of the Courts

Access to Justice Board

ACLU of Washington

Interpreter Commission

District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association

Gonzaga University School of Law

Legal Foundation of Washington

Legal Voice

Mother Attorneys Mentoring Association

Minority & Justice Commission

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Northwest Justice Project

Office of Civil Legal Aid

Office of Public Defense

Seattle University School of Law

Superior Court Judges’ Association

University of Washington School of Law

Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs

Washington State Association for Justice

Washington State Center for Court Research

Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Washington State Court Appointed Special Advocates

Washington Women Lawyers

POTENTIAL NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS

American Bar Association

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

Legal Momentum

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

National Association of Women Judges

National Association of Women Lawyers

National Center for State Courts

National Crime Victim Law Institute

8

Washington Tribal State Court Consortium (TSCC)

Dear Colleagues:

The Eastern Regional meeting of the Tribal State Court Consortium was recently held at the Colville Tribal Government Center. While this was our fourth Regional meeting, it was the first meeting of the consortium held on the eastern side of the state, but certainly will not be the last. The Colville and Kalispel Tribes graciously hosted the meeting and provided a beautiful setting, wonderful food, and a very warm welcome to all who attended! Consortium members were delighted with the reception and very grateful to our hosts.

The meeting was well attended by both state and tribal court judges. Chief Judge BJ Jones was the presenter. Judge Jones has been a tribal court judge for over 25 years and currently serves as the Chief Judge for Sisseton-Wahpeton in South Dakota, and Prairie Island in Minnesota. He is also the Director of the Tribal Judicial Institute at the University of North Dakota Law School.

Judge Jones gave a lively presentation on the value of Tribal State Court Consortiums. This was followed by a group discussion of various issues that arise in Washington and suggestions on how we might address them. The meeting concluded with a tour of both the Colville Tribal Court and the Colville Tribal Court of Appeals which included both history and new innovations and plans for the future. Attached you will find meeting notes and a PDF of Judge Jones’ presentation. Thank you to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians for hosting the first regional meeting on the eastern side of the state, and to the Minority and Justice Commission, the Gender and Justice Commission for their ongoing support of the Consortium.

Sincerely,

Judge Lori Kay Smith Chief Judge Cindy Smith King County Superior Court Suquamish Tribal Court

9

I. Welcoming Remarks

Chief Justice Anita Dupris and Chairman Michael Marchand welcomed guests to the Confederated Tribes

of the Colville Reservation. This is the first TSCC regional meeting held in eastern Washington and there

was great appreciation for our hosts and their support staff for organizing the meeting. Judge Cindy K.

Smith and Judge Lori K. Smith called the TSCC Eastern Regional Meeting to order at 9:20 a.m. Attendees

introduced themselves and a brief history of the Consortium was provided:

The Tribal State Court Consortium (TSCC) is a collaboration of the Minority and Justice Commission,

Gender and Justice Commission, Administrative Office of the Courts, and tribal courts across

Washington State. Created in 2013, TSCC aims to expand and increase communication and cooperation

between state and tribal court judicial officers. TSCC provides an open, transparent forum where state

and tribal court judicial officers can come together and discuss jurisdictional issues, gaps in services, and

ways to develop lasting partnerships.

The goal of the meeting is to discuss the importance and value of tribal state court consortia, learn

about the ways that other states have organized their consortia, and discuss cross-jurisdictional issues

and ways that they can be addressed.

II. “The Value of Tribal State Court Consortia”

Chief Judge B.J. Jones, Director, Tribal Judicial Institute at the University of North Dakota Law School

Judge Jones remarked on the collaboration of tribal courts and state courts in Washington. He

urged tribal courts to continue to build relationships with the state judiciary as a way to protect

tribal sovereignty because we have a federal administration that may not consider it a priority.

State courts also increase their credibility when they protect tribal sovereignty.

It is almost like a mystery to many state jurists about what tribal court judges do. It is important

that they understand that state courts and tribal courts have the common objective to serve all

people. Tribal courts must also recognize the credibility gap that they have with the tribes that

they serve.

Amongst many Native people, the perception is that federal courts are too harsh, state courts

are racist and unfair, and tribal courts are corrupt. Historically, the federal government has

created a lot of distrust between states and tribes. We have a lot of historical accounting to do.

It is the duty of all judges to disabuse Native people of these perceptions.

The federal, state, and tribal court systems can collaborate. Please utilize resources available at

https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/

Judge Jones gave an example of how we all should ask the questions that need to be asked. He

signs 50 warrants a day for individuals who are delinquent on payment of fines and fees, but he

has no accurate knowledge of their ability to pay. Thousands of non-Indians also use tribal

courts, some of them are other people of color. We must also care about how they are served.

Some of the issues that he has seen in his court in South Dakota involve the cross-jurisdictional

usage, production, and sale of drugs; inter-tribal disputes (tribes not honoring each other’s

10

orders); and language barriers. He was involved in an effort to provide jury instructions

translated into the Dakota language.

Tribal courts also have the pressure of having to conform and resolve issues like state courts.

State court approach is more outcome driven and tribal courts are more process driven. Justice

Dupris commented that the practices adopted in both court systems can have roots in shared

cultural values, like respect for elders.

State courts can learn from tribal courts about how to serve pro se litigants. Tribal courts seem

to do a better job. They have forms for everything from summary probate, guardianship, and

even disputes about burials available at the courthouse. The issue of how to serve pro se

litigants has become more important as legal aid resources are being cut.

The Committee on Tribal and State Court Affairs is a standing committee formed in 1994 and

maintained by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Members include tribal and state court judges,

clerks, and court administrators. Information about other state consortia can be found at

https://www.walkingoncommonground.org/state.cfm?topic=6#alpha-SD

Judge Jones suggested the group read a Gonzaga Law Review article on Public Law 280 because

it is a confusing law: https://litigation-

essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid

=47+Gonz.+L.+Rev.+801&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=30ef6ab437af613f21764bc6ae87909e

Recently release Department of Interior ICWA regulations will also require more discussion.

Issues in Washington

Judge Jones opened the floor to discuss issues judges have faced in Washington:

Justice Dupris shared that the Colville Tribal Court of Appeals recently ruled 2-1 that parental

kidnapping statutes of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act did not apply

because the tribe had declined jurisdiction.

Many cross-jurisdictional child custody issues were discussed. Custody cases have a lot of full

faith and credit issues.

Tribal courts must follow tribal law, and if the tribal council hasn’t adopted certain laws, then

the courts cannot follow it. Children who live on reservations, but parent has custody in

Washington state court, courts have to determine which court is the child’s home court. State

lawyers may also need tribal court judges to communicate with them to follow requirements

that are required of state lawyers by law, which adds another layer of complexity.

Tribal courts can modify state court orders, but there are concerns that some people may treat

tribal courts as enclaves that they rush to if they don’t like state court orders.

State courts have to consider tribal court decisions when they are considering whether to hold

people in contempt for not following the state court order.

When considering transfers, judges should ask attorneys whether child’s funding will be

diminished or they will lose access to tribal services as a result. Both state and tribal court

judges have to ask before requesting or accepting transfer. For example, guardianship program

11

funding may be contingent on the case staying in the state court’s jurisdiction and a transfer

may cause funding cuts. Court administrators should be invited to future meetings to clear up

the funding questions.

Child placement is difficult because some tribal courts are prohibited from placing a child in the

same residence as individuals with certain felony convictions.

The group discussed Washington Superior Court Civil Rule 82.5. Judge Jones encouraged future

discussions because it is unclear in the rule how we are supposed to find out if another judge

isn’t honoring an order. What is the burden of persuasion? What exactly constitutes not

recognizing or implementing orders?

Access was eliminated for tribal courts to access state system to enter orders. Swinomish Tribal

Court has an agreement with Skagit County to be able to enter orders that will go into the 911

dispatch system. Changes in leaderships can cause a breakdown in the system because these

arrangements aren’t institutionalized. Some tribes are able to enter orders into the NCIC

system, but unsure if NCIC connects with the state system.

There is also an issue of police not enforcing orders if they see that it is not from the county.

This is a major victim safety issue and violates full faith and credit laws. Tribal court orders are

supposed to enforced and honored even if they are not registered. We need to include law

enforcement in the Consortium.

Judge Doucet (Lummi Tribal Court) explained a situation involving child support. When the state

courts see an obligor is a tribal member, they automatically send it to tribal courts even while

the custody case is still ongoing in state court. Is this a requirement of the IV-D program? Maybe

it’s an assumption that these individuals have tribal assets? Some of these tribal members don’t

have any income and don’t even live on the reservation. It may inconvenient for that tribal

member to have to come to tribal court.

Each tribe has a list of Qualified Expert Witnesses. Would it be possible for tribes to come

together to create lists? Would create a larger pool to draw from.

Courthouse Tours

Justice Dupris gave a courthouse tour of the Colville Tribal Court of Appeals and Judge Sophie Nomee

gave a courthouse tour of the Colville Trial Court. Judges were able to learn about each court’s practices

and history. Judges were also able to learn more about the Colville Tribal Court Healing to Wellness

Program and probation services.

Judges returned to the Colville Government Center for closing remarks and evaluations. Meeting

adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

12

THEWASHINGTONTRIBALSTATECOURTCONSORTIUMPresentsaSpecialFilmScreeningforthe2017FallJudicialConference

TRIBALJUSTICESeptember18,20175:30p.m.–8:30p.m.TheHeathmanLodge

Vancouver,WA

Tribal Justice is a documentary feature about a little known, underreported but effective criminal justice reform movement in America: the efforts of tribal courts to create alternative systems of justice.

Tribal Justice challenges the entrenched cultural narrative of Native Americans as hopeless dependents unable to better their own circumstances. Our stories show our featured judges asserting tribal sovereignty and invoking their own traditions to heal their people and raise them out of poverty and inequality.

A discussion about the Washington State Tribal Court Consortium will follow the screening.

All are welcomed and encouraged to attend. Food will be provided at the event. Please RSVP through the Judicial Conference registration form or

by email: Cynthia.Delostrinos@courts.wa.gov

13

Court Access for Incarcerated Parents June 26, 2017

SeaTac, WA 8:30am – 3:00pm

PURPOSE There are many barriers that incarcerated parents face in trying to participate in their family law and/or dependency cases. There is no uniform, statewide procedure that courts use when an incarcerated parent wants to remotely participate in a hearing, trial, or other court proceeding. The purpose of this convening was to find solutions that will facilitate participation, and will help keep families together.

OBJECTIVE To remove barriers that exist institutionally within the courts and prison systems, and to create a statewide procedure for incarcerated parents to remotely participate in their family law and dependency cases.

EVENT REPORT

Welcoming Remarks Justice Gordon McCloud, Chair, Gender and Justice Commission

Justice Gordon McCloud welcomed the gathered group of stakeholders and thanked them for taking the time to develop solutions to the barriers incarcerated parents face when trying to participate in their family law and dependency cases. She reviewed statistics on incarceration, to bring attendees onto the same page about who is impacted by these barriers. Justice Gordon McCloud emphasized the importance of involvement from state agencies that have the ability to make policy and practice changes that will improve access for incarcerated parents, through partnership with advocacy groups.

Introductions and Format/Framing for the Day Gail Stone, Chair, Incarcerated Women and Girls Committee

Ms. Stone oriented everyone to the purpose and objectives for the day. The focus is on developing solutions to identified barriers. During the registration process, individuals were asked to share why they were interested in participating in the event. Ms. Stone read aloud several responses anonymously, to highlight the fact that individuals from divergent perspectives – corrections, courts, attorneys, and parents themselves – were all invested in the same goal of improving access for incarcerated parents.

Panel Discussion: Navigating the System Jeannie Macnab, Facilitator

14

Panelists • Elizabeth Hendren, Family Law Attorney, Northwest Justice Project• D’Adre Cunningham, Incarcerated Parents Project Attorney, Washington

Defender Association• Commissioner Jennie Laird, Pierce County Superior Court• Susie Leavell, Parenting Sentencing Alternatives Administrator, WA DOC• Alise Hegle, Children’s Home Society, and formerly incarcerated parent• Cheryl Strong, formerly incarcerated parent• Tanya Quinata, currently incarcerated parent (via phone)

The purpose of this panel was to hear perspectives from attorneys who represent or assist incarcerated clients, a judicial officer who hears these cases, the Department of Corrections, and current and formerly incarcerated parents who were directed affected by this issue.

Ms. Hendren, Ms. Cunningham, and Commissioner Laird presented a short summary of the legal and policy framework that currently governs court access for incarcerated parents in family law and dependency cases.

The panel then discussed their own observations and/or experiences related to the following barriers to court access.

Previously-Identified Barriers to Court Access for Incarcerated Parents Original list prepared by Elizabeth Hendren, Northwest Justice Project • Court-appointed attorney: Attorneys are appointed for dependency cases, but

not family for law cases. Additionally, federal funding for legal aid prohibitsrepresentation in court of incarcerated individuals, so indigent parents withfamily law cases seldom have an attorney.

• Access to a law library: Minimum-security prisons and most county jails do nothave a law library. DOC will not usually transport parents from minimum-security prisons to a prison with a law library for a family law issue. 65.22% ofjudges and commissioners surveyed in 2016 thought incarcerated parents haveaccess to legal research.

• Mandatory court forms: Family law cases require pleadings to be filed onmandatory forms, however these forms are not available in minimum-securityprisons and jails. 46.38% of judges and commissioners surveyed in 2016 thoughtincarcerated parents have access to these forms.

• Transportation: DOC does not provide transportation to family lawhearings/trials.

• Internet access: Incarcerated parents have no internet access, however 21.74%of judges and commissioners surveyed in 2016 thought they do.

• Email access: Incarcerated parents do not have regular email access. They canonly send electronic messages through JPay, however most courts do not haveJPay accounts.

15

• Legal mail: Sometimes important, time-sensitive legal mail is not clearly identified as such and is processed by the prison as regular mail, which can be very slow.

• Telephonic appearances: Currently each county has a different local rule for requesting a telephonic appearance, and not all the rules are possible to complete without internet access, email, or money for multiple phone calls. When telephonic appearances are arranged, some counties give a multi-hour window to expect the call from the court, which is burdensome to DOC staff who are expected to work with multiple people.

• Access to court-ordered services: Sometimes the court orders parents to complete services or treatment that is not available to them at their facility, and sometimes the parents’ lack of compliance with the court ordered services is used against them.

• Eligibility for parenting sentencing alternatives: if a parent may lose their child in a dependency case, this is a significant barrier to overcome to get into these programs.

• Phone calls with attorneys: There is not usually a way for court-appointed attorneys to call into a prison to speak with their client for an urgent issue. Additionally, calls out are expensive; not all incarcerated parents can afford to pay to call out and not all law offices accept collect calls. Some DOC counselors will facilitate calls between incarcerated parents and their attorneys, but others refuse, saying that it is against DOC policy for them to do so.

• Phone calls and mail to DSHS Social Workers, CASAs, and GALs: Similar to calls with attorneys, sometimes parents need to communicate with social workers or evaluators working on their cases and can’t due to the high cost of prison phone calls. Additionally, parents can’t send free legal mail to social workers and evaluators as they can to attorneys.

• Child visitation: At the 2014 Stakeholders’ meeting, attorneys reported some courts seeming unaware of visitation options through DOC or being unwilling to allow incarcerated parents to have court-ordered visitation with their children. This was echoed in the 2016 court survey, where 16.87% of judges and commissioners surveyed answered “no” the question “Do you believe visits with a parent in jail or prison can be in the best interests of the child?”

• Lack of information: Parents don’t know what is happening in their family law/dependency case.

Potential Solutions Identified

• The Department of Corrections could amend its policy to include family law as a type of legal matter requiring access to a law library.

• Incarcerated parents should be able to access technology to participate in video visits with their children.

• Family impact statements are very helpful and should be used. • Develop a statewide unified rule for telephone appearance.

16

• Create a guide for DOC counselors of available resources to help incarceratedparents with these issues. Have a resource “navigator” for parents in eachfacility.

• Install kiosks with access to pre-approved legal resources in minimumsecurity prisons.

• Implement advanced planning with attorneys for incarcerated parents’telephone appearances. Courts may sign an order requiring appearance bytelephone or otherwise. Courts should have all the information/evidencenecessary to make decisions in these matters.

• Increased funding.• Legal mail is a helpful tool. It is defined by policy, and could be amended to

include other entities that can send confidential mail to incarcerated people.

Successful practices that could be institutionalized • When incarcerated parents file a pro se notice of appearance, this puts court

on notice that they want to participate even if they haven’t figured out how tofile a response yet. It has been observed to have an impact on whether thecourt would conduct hearings without them.

o Court must be aware that this has been filed, so would need to benoted in system.

o Some court are more particular about how notice of appearance iswritten.

• Plain language forms may be helpful for improving access. It will be helpful torevisit this later when they have been in use for a while.

• DOC asks at intake if the individual is a parent. Other facilities, includingjuvenile facilities, could implement this, and provide appropriate resources.

• Law school clinics and pro bono attorneys are really helpful, but more areneeded. Legal aid providers operate with restricted funding that does notallow them to represent incarcerated individuals.

Prepare for Afternoon Session Jeannie Macnab, Facilitator

• A list of the identified barriers was posted on the wall. Each participant wasgiven sticky dots to place next to the barriers they were most interested inworking in depth on solutions for in the afternoon.

• The barriers that participants chose were:1. Access to legal resources2. Telephonic appearances3. Phone calls and mail to DSHS Social Workers, CASAs, GALs4. Rules and procedures vary by county5. Lack of information – parents don’t know what is happening with

their family law/dependency case6. Parents don’t have money for stamps, phone calls, email and they do

not have the ability to incur debt

17

Small Group Work Jeannie Macnab, Facilitator

• Participants broke out into five small groups to identifying a practicalsolutions to a specific barrier. Barriers three and five were combined intoone group.

• Participants chose a group based on their interest or ability to make changein that area. The facilitator helped with ensuring all perspectives wererepresented in each group for the most effective results.

• Each group worked to identify potential solutions, choose the most effectivesolution, and then develop a work plan for achieving it, including identifyingother partners needed.

Small Group Share Back

Barrier #1 Access to Legal Resources

Solution: Remove barriers to law library/ legal research access by providing multiple avenues to legal research.

Next steps: Provide mobile library. Install kiosks. Improve coordination/communication with outside research services such as the state law library. Create guides or other resources to maximize time allowed for legal research. Change DOC policy about access to include pending dependency/family law cases after impact review (i.e. allow access to law library without changing custody classification).

Barrier #2 Telephonic appearances.

Solution: Propose statewide general rule governing telephonic appearances.

Next steps: draft rule, and aim is to have draft by Sept 1. DOC draft policy by July 31st and look into video capabilities. All provided to stakeholders in September for review and to prepare for submitting rule. Propose general rule winter 2017/18. If rule is implemented, cross training will be necessary to ensure all agencies are aware of the policy and process changes.

Barriers #3 and #5 Parents don’t know what is happening in their family law/dependency case and don’t have telephone or email access to social workers, CASAs, GALs, and others involved in the case.

18

Solution: Create a plain language guidebook about family law and dependency processes and where to seek additional information. This will help the incarcerated parent navigate the system.

Next Steps: Individuals in this group divided up sections to draft. Those involved in advocacy groups with parents offered to reach out to the parents and seek their input on the guide. Ms. Hendren from NJP will provide list of links included on the kiosks for inclusion.

Barrier #4 –Rules, policies, and procedures vary by county

Solution: Change them or create statewide rule or law to include mandatory appointment of counsel for incarcerated parents in dependency actions, without requiring affirmative request or pre-screening for indigence

Next steps: Collect data from OPD. Draft rule or legislation to propose. Obtain legislative buy-in.

Barrier #6 - Parents do not have money for stamps, phone calls, email and they do not have the ability to incur debt

Solution: Change DOC policy 590.500 to include all legal issues as priority for access. Alternatively, clarify the definition of civil rights issue to include additional case types.

Next steps: Request that DOC review the policy. Obtain feedback from other stakeholders. DOC also noted that it will seek an AG opinion about the definition of civil rights issues in the policy.

Thank You and Adjournment Rita Bender, Member, Incarcerated Women and Girls Committee

Ms. Macnab closed the facilitated discussion and thanked everyone for their participation. On behalf of the Incarcerated Women and Girls Committee of the Gender and Justice Commission, Ms. Bender thanked participants for their time and commitment to making change.

Mary Helen Roberts invites anyone who is interested in continuing to work on these issues to also attend the Children of Incarcerated Parents Workgroup, which meets on the first Wednesday of every month at the AOC Seatac Office.

19

PROPOSED SESSION TITLE: Court Access for Incarcerated Parents: Family Law & Dependency Cases

STATUS:

__ Received Date:________ __ Accepted __ Not Accepted

Why:________________

PROPOSED BY: Gender and Justice Commission

CONTACT NAME: Kelley Amburgey-Richardson, Commission Staff

CONTACT PHONE: (360) 704-4031

CONTACT EMAIL: kelley.amburgey-richardson@courts.wa.gov

TARGET AUDIENCE:

Experienced Judges

New Judges

Experienced Commissioners

New Commissioners

PROPOSED DURATION:

90 Minutes

3 Hours

2 Hours

Other:

SESSION TYPE:

Plenary

Choice

IS THERE A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS?

Yes

No If yes, maximum number:

TOPIC AREA:

Criminal Law

Family Law

Civil Law

Ethics

Evidence

Decision-Making

Courtroom Skills

Good Communication

Pro Se Litigants

Juvenile Law

Dependencies

Constitutional Law

REQUIRED COMPONENTS The session must address the following essential areas of information:

Substantive Knowledge Administrative/Procedural Skills, Attitudes & Beliefs

• Barriers to court access facing incarcerated parents

• RCWs impacting incarcerated parent access to family law and dependency cases

• Current procedures for court access for incarcerated parents

• Proposed statewide procedure/rule

• Incarcerated parent access to family law/dependency cases as an access to justice issue

• Importance of incarcerated parent access to their children when safe and appropriate

20

RECOMMENDED FACULTY, INCLUDING CONTACT INFORMATION:Ms. Elizabeth Hendren, Northwest Justice Project – elizabethh@nwjustice.orgMs. Alise Hegle, Children’s Home Society and formerly incarcerated parent -- alise.hegle@chs-wa.orgCommissioner Jennie Laird, King County Superior Court, Family & Juvenile Court –jennie.laird@kingcounty.govMs. Susie Leavell, Program Administrator, Parenting Sentencing Alternatives, DOC –srleavell@doc1.wa.gov

SESSION DESCRIPTION: Describe the purpose of the session and key issues to be presented. Explainwhat judicial officers will learn in the course and how the information will apply to their work in the courts(this information will be included in the program flyer as your session description).

This session will build upon the 2016 SCJA conference session entitled, Children of Incarcerated Parents: Keeping Families Connected. As a result of that session and other work of the Incarcerated Women andGirls Committee, the Gender and Justice Commission convened a group of almost fifty stakeholders inJune 2017. The objective for this event was to remove barriers that exist institutionally within the courtsand prison systems, and to create a statewide procedure for incarcerated parents to remotely participatein their family law and dependency cases. Faculty will present on what was learned at the event, and theirprogress toward creating a statewide procedure.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Describe what participants will be able to do or say as a result of this session.

Participants will:

• Increase their knowledge of the barriers facing incarcerated parents and possible solutions;

• Understand the current structure for incarcerated parent access and how it varies across the state; and

• Be prepared to discuss potential upcoming procedure or rule changes with their colleagues and courtsstaff.

FUNDAMENTALS COVERED: Describe the case law, best practices, or “nuts and bolts” that will beaddressed during the session.

This session will cover the current framework for incarcerated parent access to family law anddependency proceedings, including DOC policy, local rules, and various courts’ practices. Faculty willpresent on some promising practices for parental access, and will share their progress toward a statewideprocedure to address this.

21

PARTICIPANT RESOURCES: Describe the resources faculty will recommend participants referencewhen handling the key issues described in this session (e.g., bench books, checklists, bench cards, websites, organizations, agencies, etc.).

Faculty will provide short summaries of each of the following for participants to reference:

• Summary of barriers to court access

• Summary of relevant family law and dependency RCWs

• Overview of relevant local rules

• Draft summary of statewide procedure or rule

PROPOSED TEACHING METHODS AND ACTIVITIES: Describe how the session will be presented toactively engage the audience in the education (e.g., small/large group discussion, hypotheticals, case study review, role play, lecturette, etc.).

This session will include visual aids, brief case studies and redacted examples of court orders, and largegroup discussion.

ANTICIPATED COST:Faculty travel and lodging is estimated at $1500.

FUNDING RESOURCES:The Gender & Justice Commission will cover allfaculty travel expenses.

22

PROPOSED SESSION TITLE: Domestic Violence and Family Law: Case Law Update

STATUS:

__ Received Date:________ __ Accepted __ Not Accepted

Why:________________

PROPOSED BY: Gender and Justice Commission

CONTACT NAME: Kelley Amburgey-Richardson, Commission Staff

CONTACT PHONE: (360) 704-4031

CONTACT EMAIL: kelley.amburgey-richardson@courts.wa.gov

TARGET AUDIENCE:

Experienced Judges

New Judges

Experienced Commissioners

New Commissioners

PROPOSED DURATION:

90 Minutes

3 Hours

2 Hours

Other:

SESSION TYPE:

Plenary

Choice

IS THERE A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS?

Yes

No If yes, maximum number:

TOPIC AREA:

Criminal Law

Family Law

Civil Law

Ethics

Evidence

Decision-Making

Courtroom Skills

Good Communication

Pro Se Litigants

Juvenile Law

Dependencies

Constitutional Law

REQUIRED COMPONENTS The session must address the following essential areas of information:

Substantive Knowledge Administrative/Procedural Skills, Attitudes & Beliefs

• Updated case law (see cases listed below)

• Review of statutes related to DV

• Technical review of DVPO process and best practices

• How exposure to domestic violence affects children.

23

RECOMMENDED FACULTY, INCLUDING CONTACT INFORMATION:Ms. Leslie Savina, Advocacy Coordinator, NW Justice Project – lsavina@nwjustice.orgMr. David Ward, Legal and Legislative Counsel, Legal Voice – dward@legalvoice.org

SESSION DESCRIPTION: Describe the purpose of the session and key issues to be presented. Explainwhat judicial officers will learn in the course and how the information will apply to their work in the courts(this information will be included in the program flyer as your session description).

In recent years, a number of new cases (see list of cases below in “Fundamentals Covered” section) haveresulted in an updated legal landscape for domestic violence issues in family law proceedings. Some ofthe issues this session will cover include, (1) children’s exposure to domestic violence, and (2) domesticviolence protection orders involving children. Faculty for this session have been involved in many of thesecases, and will be able to present on the holdings, share promising practices, and take questions.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Describe what participants will be able to do or say as a result of this session.

Participants will:

• Understand the updated legal landscape related to domestic violence issues in family law proceedingsas it relates to the recent cases (see below); and

• Be able to apply new case law when these issues come before their courts.

FUNDAMENTALS COVERED: Describe the case law, best practices, or “nuts and bolts” that will beaddressed during the session.

This session will provide an overview of the following new case law involving domestic violence issues infamily law proceedings:

• Rodriguez v. Zavala, WA Supreme Court (June 29, 2017) - establishes that exposure to domesticviolence harms children and that a parent’s fear of harm for a child comes within the definition of“domestic violence” for purposes of a petition for a domestic violence protection order

• Juarez v. Juarez, 195 Wn. App 880, 382 P. 3d 13 (2016) - ruled that failure to grant year-longdomestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) is an abuse of discretion that fails to fulfill thelegislative intent to provide safety for victims.

• Maldonado v. Maldonado, Court of Appeals (Div. I) – holding that the trial court abused itsdiscretion “by failing to state in writing the particular reasons why the other two children were notincluded in the protection order and by denying protection on the basis that relief could be obtainedin another…action.”

• In Re The Parentage of L.H. and C.H., Court of Appeals (Div II) – finding “that the trial court abusedits discretion when it declined to enter a finding… [of] a domestic violence history because it

24

wanted to protect” the perpetrator from collateral consequences.

• Apr. 6, 2017 - In re Marriage of Black http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=929947MAJ “The final parenting plan awarded Charles sole decision-making authority regarding the children's education and religious upbringing. But the record shows that the trial court considered Rachelle's sexual orientation as a factor when it fashioned the final parenting plan. Further, improper bias influenced the proceedings. This bias casts doubt on the trial court's entire ruling, and we are not confident the trial court ensured a fair proceeding by maintaining a neutral attitude regarding Rachelle's sexual orientation. Accordingly, we reverse.”

• Jan. 12, 2017 - Aiken v. Aiken http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=926310MAJ The WA Supreme Court holds no statutory right to cross-x a child in a dvpo proceeding. Like Gourley, the decision is narrow and based on the particular facts of the case. But the court held fast to the principle that testimony/cross-x is not a right, only something to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

• Jan 3,2017 - Rebecca Nelson, Appellant V. James Duvall, Respondent http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=734164MAJ Ms. Nelson was intoxicated to the point of no memory when she was raped by another student during her freshman year at UW. The trial court denied the sexual assault protection order because respondent said she consented and Ms. Nelson had no memory, no evidence to the contrary. The Court of Appeals, Div. I, remanded to the trial court to determine whether Ms. Nelson had capacity to consent to sexual conduct.

PARTICIPANT RESOURCES: Describe the resources faculty will recommend participants reference when handling the key issues described in this session (e.g., bench books, checklists, bench cards, websites, organizations, agencies, etc.).

• Case summaries

• Hypothetical scenarios

• Bench cards from updated DV bench guide

25

PROPOSED TEACHING METHODS AND ACTIVITIES: Describe how the session will be presented toactively engage the audience in the education (e.g., small/large group discussion, hypotheticals, case study review, role play, lecturette, etc.).

This session will include visual aids, hypotheticals, case study review, and large group discussion.

ANTICIPATED COST:Faculty travel and lodging is estimated at $1000.

FUNDING RESOURCES:The Gender & Justice Commission will cover allfaculty travel expenses.

26

Commission Expenses Proposed Budget FY16-17

Commission Meetings Travel-related costs for members (lodging, per diem, mileage, airfare, etc.) (July, Sept, Nov, Jan, March, May)

$11,500

General Operating Expenses Printing, conference calls, supplies, etc. $3,000Staff Travel & Training Registration Fees, Travel-related costs $3,000

workshops, tuition reimbursementCommunications Annual Report $700Education Programs

Appellate Conference $1,000DMCJA Conference $3,000Fall Conference (Sept. 2017) $8,000Poverty simulation $1,000Judicial College (STOP Sponsored)SCJA Conference (STOP sponsored)

Sponsorships/Events Judicial Officer & Law Student Reception $1,000Women's History/Legislative Reception $1,500Tribal State Court Consortium $7,500 Tribal Judges to Judicial College TSCC Regional Meetings / Fall Mtg Tribal Judges to SCJA Conference Tribal Judges to Fall ConferenceColor of Justice $500IWGC Committee Mtg Support $300Mission Creek - Success Inside & Out $1,000

Requests Gender Bias Report - Undetermined

Starting Budget $50,000All Allocated Commission Expenses $43,000

Unallocated $7,000Updated 6.28.2017

Gender & Justice CommissionBudget July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018

27

Total = $144,038 $106,268 $37,770 (max amt) (min amt)

DV Projects SA ProjectsSalaries & Benefits Staff $32,604 $10,777

Office Supplies, Copies, Printing Supplies, Copies, etc. $2,500 $500Benchguides (printed, flash drive, DVD/CD)

Staff Training & Education Staff to attend local and national conferences & training events $500 $500

Committee Meetings Support travel-related & pro tem costs for in-person Committee mtgs $3,500 $500DVPT Advisory Group (BIP WAC revisions)

Scholarship Support Scholarships for judicial officers & court staff to attend trainings. $4,000 $0Covers lodging, airfare/mileage, meals ORStaff may calculate costs & provide a maximum coverage amountEnhancing Judicial Skills in DV (Judicial Officers)Continuing Judicial Skills in DV (Judicial Officers)NCJFCJ National Conference (Judicial Officers)Children's Justice Conference (Court Personnel)

Education Programs Monies for support of educational sessionsJudicial College (January 2017) $2,500 $0SCJA Spring Conference (April 2017) $2,000 $500Fall Conference (September 2017) (G&J FY 18 Budget) $0 $0

Other: Line Staff Training $9,400

Requests Requests from others for supportMission Creek 2017 $1,500DV Symposium (Judicial Officers & Court Personnel) $10,000SA Benchguide - KCSARC - Bench Guide Update Management $7,600SA Benchguide - Chapter (Claudia Bayliff) $5,000SA Benchguide - Editor (Judge Yule) $5,000Translation of DV/SA Forms, Instructions $0 $0

Legislative Requests HB 1163 - Convene workgroups, write legislative reports (contract staff time)

$45,000

SUB-Totals per portion of grant $104,104 $39,777

Total $143,881 Non-dedicated Funds $157

Updated 5.5.2017

STOP BUDGET FFY16 January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2017

28

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Honorable Sheryl Gordon McCloud, Chair Washington State Supreme Court

Honorable Marilyn G. Paja, Vice Chair Kitsap County District Court

Ms. Rita L Bender Skellenger Bender, P.S.

Honorable Josie Delvin Benton County Clerk

Honorable Michael H. Evans Cowlitz County Superior Court

Ms. Gail Hammer Gonzaga University School of Law

Ms. Grace Huang API Institute on Gender-Based Violence

Honorable Judy Rae Jasprica Pierce County District Court

Ms. LaTricia Kinlow Tukwila Municipal Court

Honorable Eric z. Lucas Snohomish County Superior Court

Honorable Rich Melnick Court of Appeals, Division II

Honorable Susan Owens Washington Supreme Court

Dr. Dana Raigrodski University of Washington School of Law

Ms. Jennifer Ritchie Washington Women Lawyers

Ms. Leslie J. Savina Northwest Justice Project

Honorable Cindy K. Smith Suquamish Tribal Court

Ms. Gail Stone King County Executive's Office

Ms. Sonia M Rodriguez True True Law Group. P.S.

Ms. Victoria L Vreeland Vreeland Law PLLC

Washington State Supreme Court Gender and Justice Commission

August 14, 2017

Subject: E2SHB 1163 - Domestic Violence Workgroups

To Whom it May Concern:

We are writing to request your participation in recently established legislative workgroups concerning domestic violence perpetrator treatment and risk assessment.

In the 2017 session, the Washington State Legislature passed E2SHB 1163 - Concerning Domestic Violence, which went into effect on July 23, 2017. Sections Seven and Eight of that law task the Administrative Office of the Courts, through the Washington State Supreme Court Gender and Justice Commission, with convening statewide workgroups. That legislation names your organization and/or entity as a participant.

The Washington State Supreme Court Gender and Justice Commission (Commission) was established in 1994 and it is charged with addressing gender based violence as it relates to the courts. The Commission receives federal Violence Against Women Act STOP Grant funds set aside for the courts to accomplish this important work.

We use these STOP grants to develop and produce resources and education programs for court staff and judicial officers in the area of gender based violence. The Commission has worked collaboratively with many court and community stakeholders to accomplish its work, and has played an essential role in convening stakeholders in discussions around domestic violence in the courts.

The Commission is therefore named as the convening body for these new legislatively mandated workgroups on perpetrator treatment and risk assessment. We plan to convene the E2SHB 1163 workgroups for an initial meeting on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at the Administrative Office of the Courts office located in SeaTac, WA. The law specifically named your organization or entity as one of the required participants of one (or both) of the workgroup(s).

29

August 14, 2017 Page 2

Please submit, by August 31, 2017, the name(s) of the individual(s) who will represent your organization or entity on the workgroups. Names and contact information may be provided electronically to Ms. Kelley Amburgey-Richardson, Court Program Analyst to the Commission, at kelley.amburgey-richardson@courts.wa.gov. Please direct any questions about the workgroups to Ms. Amburgey-Richardson.

We look forward to your organization's participation in the workgroups.

Sincerely,

JffilA~ heryl Gordon McCloud

Chair, ender and Justice Commission Washington State Supreme Court

Enclosures: E2SHB 1163

Vice Chair, G : and Justice !issi~n Kitsap County District Court

30

Kitsap County District Court State of Washington

CLAIRE A. BRADLEY JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 1

MARILYN G. PAJA JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 3

614 DIVISION STREET PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366

360-337-7109kitsapgov.com/dc KCDC@co.kitsap.wa.us

CLINT L. CASEBOLT COURT ADMINISTRATOR

JEFFREY J. JAHNS PRESIDING JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 2

STEPHEN J. HOLMAN JUDGE, DEPARTMENT 4

August 30, 2017

The Honorable Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud Chair, Washington State Gender & Justice Commission P.O. Box 40929 Olympia, WA 98504-0929

Re. National Association of Women Judges Midyear Conference

Dear Justice McCloud:

I thank the Gender & Justice Commission for providing the registration fee for me to attend the Midyear Conference of the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) held June 7 and 8, 2017 in Los Angeles California. The costs can be high to the attendee, so this partial assistance was greatly appreciated and should be acknowledged.

It was my honor to represent the Gender & Justice Commission at this meeting of the NAWJ Board, of which I am also a member.

First, I wish to report back to the Commission specifically about the presentation that I made to the Board of the NAWJ asking for support of the Washington State Gender Bias Study. Attached is a copy of your letter that was provided to the Board as I explained the broad scope of the endeavor being surveyed by the Commission.

I am pleased to report that the imprimatur of the NAWJ as the “leading voice of women judicial officers in the US” is available to us as we begin further outreach. The NAWJ Board was enthusiastic about our project, and unanimously voted to lend its support to the Gender & Justice Commission in our upcoming effort in grant-writing and fund-raising for the Washington State

31

Gender Bias Study and to act as a supporter or partner in these applications upon request. The support is, at this time, non-monetary.

Coordination may be made through Ms. Marie Komisar, NAWJ Executive Director, and through the NAWJ President, Judge Diana Becton. I have copied both with this letter.

The Commission may further be interested to know that the education components of the NAWJ Midyear Conference were excellent. In a very busy day we participated in a session on elder law (specifically as the capacity of persons may be masked by the effects of multiple prescription and OTC drugs), a second and outstanding panel presentation concerning both historical and futurist perspectives on e-communications beyond the current entertainment and news models, and finally a truly remarkable discussion about implicit and explicit bias in the media.

This last session on implicit and explicit bias in the media, included a major movie studio production executive, a UCLA social science professor who has studied the issue and possible solutions extensively, a script-writer turned agent turned commentator actively involved with the ‘Oscars So White’ protest, and a movie studio executive from another legendary company who leads a broad-based Director’s workshop. While this session focused on the movie and television/e-production companies, (appropriate for a conference held in Los Angeles), the discussion itself was extraordinary and very much applicable to many industries. (As a personal side note, I could envision a similar presentation and open dialogue among some of our Seattle-based tech company executives that would be riveting.)

Thank you very much for the opportunity to attend this Conference and to report back so positively about future support from the National Association of Women Judges.

Sincerely,

Judge Marilyn Paja NAWJ Vice President of Districts and Gender & Justice Commission Vice Chair

Encl. (PDF on e-transmittal) Cc: The Honorable Judge Diana Becton, President NAWJ Cc: Ms. Marie Komisar, NAWJ Executive Director Cc: Ms. Cynthia Delostrinos, JD, Washington State Administrator of the Courts (AOC) Manager of Commissions Cc: Ms. Kelley Amburgey-Richardson, JD, AOC Court Program Analyst to Gender & Justice Commission

32

Gender and JusticeCommission Meeting Schedule

2018

Meetings are held atAOC SeaTac Office

18000 International Blvd11th Floor, Suite 1106

Meeting Time: 8:45 AM to Noon

2018 Meetings Dates

• January 26th

• March 2nd (Location may be Temple of Justice, Olympia)• May 4th

• June 21st (Thursday)• September 7th

• November 2nd

AOC Staff: Kelley Amburgey-Richardson, Court Program Analystkelley.amburgey-richardson@courts.wa.gov;360.704.4031

Cynthia Delostrinos, Supreme Court CommissionsManager cynthia.delostrinos@courts.wa.gov;360.705.5327

Revised 8.30.2017

33